1

LIFE-CYCLE CONSIDERATIONS OF LOADING

TRANSFORMERS ABOVE NAMEPLATE RATING


by Michael A. Franchek
David J. Woodcock

Weidmann Technical Services Inc.


I. INTRODUCTION: The Electric Transmission and Distribution Challenge

In todays world of deregulated electric utilities, the concepts of transformer life
extension, increased loading, and reduced maintenance are often discussed. These ideas
at first appear to be contradictory in nature, but all strive for the same results; reduced
operating costs and improved reliability in the delivery of electricity. In fact, for substation
transformers, all of these goals can be obtained with the implementation of a strategic Life
Cycle Management Program. This paper addresses the primary concepts of life
extension and increased loading of transformers, and how these issues are interrelated.


Power transformers are the single largest capital item in substations, comprising
almost 60 percent of the total investment. The utility expenditures associated with this
investment in acquisition, installation, operation and maintenance typically do not reflect the
magnitude of this investment. The cost of premature and unexpected failure of one of
these assets can be several times the initial cost of the transformer. There is not only the
refurbishment or replacement cost but also costs associated with clean-up, loss of
revenue, and possible deterioration in the quality of power delivery.
(2)



As competitive pressures within the utility industry mount, and the transmission and
distribution infrastructure continues to age, the lack of utility attention to these critical assets
will become very visible to management, stockholders and customers, alike. Future
demands will include reductions in forced outages and failure rates which can only be
achieved with significant changes in the way utilities manage, operate and care for
transformers. These changes will include acquisition of new transformers along with
strategic Life Cycle Management Programs for existing units.


So, with tongue firmly in cheek, we can summarize by saying the challenge for the
utility engineer is easy:

Leverage the most out of existing transformer assets
Avoid cost of sudden equipment failure and forced outages
Defer capital expenditures
Minimize operating and maintenance costs.
II. Loading transformers above Nameplate Rating - Not Only for Emergencies
2

Transmission and distribution substation transformers have historically been loaded
beyond nameplate rating to accommodate emergency or contingency conditions. Until
recently, the operation of transformers would fit into one of the following loading
categories.
(3,4)



1. Normal life expectancy loading - Continuous Load

As the term implies, this is the constant loading at rated nameplate output
(kVA) when the transformer is operated under a constant 30 C ambient condition.
This condition implies a continuous hot spot conductor temperature of 110 C,
which is the sum of the following temperatures: 65 C (ave. winding rise) + 30 C
(ambient) + 15 C (hot spot rise) = 110 C. Of course, this loading condition rarely
happens over the life of a transformer, where both load and ambient temperature
vary over time.


2. Normal Life Expectancy Loading - Cyclical Load

This loading implies a cyclical load at a normal constant ambient (30 C)
where the hottest spot conductor temperature varies above and below the normal
110 C, as the load cycles above and below the nameplate kVA of the
transformer. From the thermal aging standpoint, this cycle is equivalent to the
case of rated constant load at normal ambient temperature (30 C). This is the
case because, thermal aging is a cumulative effect over time and temperatures
above 110 C are permitted provided the transformer is operated for much longer
periods below 110 C. Of course, maximum allowable hot spot and top oil
temperatures can not be exceeded.


3. Long Time Emergency Loading

This operation results from the prolonged outage of a system component
which causes transformer loading that results in hottest spot conductor
temperatures in the range of 120 - 140 C. This type of occurrence would be rare
and would be expected to happen two to three times over the transformer life and
each event may last weeks to months. This type of operation causes accelerated
aging of the transformer insulation system, and may have other associated risks.
Loss of insulation life calculations should be made to assure it is acceptable for
such an event and top oil temperatures should not exceed 110 C.




3
4. Short-time Emergency Loading

This loading condition is unusually quite high, and is caused by one or more
events which seriously disturb normal system loading and are expected to occur
rarely, two to three times over the transformer life. This loading condition can
cause hottest-spot conductor temperatures as high as 180 C for a short period of
time. Significant acceleration in insulation loss of life can occur during this event,
and calculations should be made to determine if the loss is acceptable. Because
of the rapid aging, load must be reduced fast, typically within one hour. This type of
loading has several risks associated with it, such as, reduced dielectric strength,
stray flux heating and exceeding ancillary equipment ratings.


A new loading condition has now come into existence. The condition is driven by
the need to utilize assets more effectively, without compromising the overall life expectancy
of the transformer. This new loading condition is:


5.
Planned Loading Beyond Nameplate - Normal Operation
(3)

This loading results in the conductor hottest-spot or top-oil temperature
exceeding the limits suggested for normal life expectancy loading. This loading
is accepted by the user as a normal, planned-for operating condition. There is
no associated equipment outage or emergencies with this type of loading.
Cyclic loads resulting in hottest-spot conductor temperatures in the range of
120 - 130 C would be associated with this loading requirement. This type of
loading would occur frequently, and in some cases daily, during a short part of
the transformers load cycle. Loss of insulation life calculations must be done to
make sure it is acceptable for this loading condition.


TABLE 1 shows the suggested maximum temperatures given in ANSI/IEEE C57.91-
1995 and IEC Standard 354 for the four types of transformer loading. In addition to this
criteria, it is always advisable to calculate the loss of insulation life and make sure it is
acceptable for the loads beyond nameplate. Acceptable limits of loss of insulation life for
various loadings is very important for an utility loading policy.


4
TABLE I

Suggested Maximum Temperature Limits - C
IEC vs. IEEE

Normal Planned Long-Time Short-Time
Life Loading Emergency Emergency
Expectancy Beyond NP 1-3 Months 1/2-2 Hours
Insulated Conductor IEEE 120C 130C 140C 180C
Hottest Temperature IEC 120C (N/A) 130C 160C
Other Metalic IEEE 140C 150C 160C 200C
(Supports, core, etc.) IEC (N/A) (N/A) (N/A) (N/A)
Top Oil Temperature IEEE 105C 110C 110C 110C
IEC 105C (N/A) 115C 115C
Load Factor IEEE (N/A) (N/A) (N/A) 1.5 pu
Per Unit Current IEC 1.3 pu (N/A) 1.3 pu 1.5 pu


The top-oil temperature is limited to 105 - 110 C in IEEE/ANSI because of the
ancillary equipment located in the top oil of the transformers. Bushings which do not utilize
thermally uprated insulating paper are components which typically set this upper limit.
Transformer loading studies should include, in addition to winding, hottest spot and top oil
temperatures, calculation for the temperature rise of the other current carrying components
such as: bushings, tap changers, cables, etc. For example, both the steady state and
transient hottest spot temperature can be calculated for bottom connected bushings, using
the method described in ANSI/IEEE C57.19.100, Guide for Application of Power
Apparatus Bushings.
(5)


The steady state (S.S.) temperature rise can be calculated using Equation #1.

HS
= K
1
I
n
+ K
2

o
(Equation #1)
Where:
HS
= S.S. Hottest Spot Rise Over Ambient (C)

o
= S.S. Immersion Oil Rise Over Ambient (C)
5
I = Per Unit Load Current Based on Bushing
n, K
1
, K
2
= Constants Specific to Bushing
The transient hottest spot temperature of the bushing can also be calculated using a
transient approach which includes calculation of top oil temperatures. A more conservative
single step method can also be used to calculate the final hottest spot temperature.
(5)

The contact temperature for tap changes and temperature rise of lead cables
should also be calculated to make sure they do not limit the load capacity of the
transformer. Relay settings must be checked so load is not dropped unintentionally and oil
expansion space may also become critical at higher loads.

Additional care must be used when evaluating large power transformers loaded
beyond nameplate due to stray flux heating. The sensitivity of transformers being loaded
beyond nameplate rating is very dependent on size. As size increases, leakage flux
density and short circuit forces will also increase. The increased leakage flux of larger
units at loads beyond nameplate may cause additional eddy-current heating of metallic
structural components in the transformer. It can also be more difficult to accurately
determine the hot spot temperature on larger units.


Because of these considerations, and the magnitude of the consequences of
failure, larger transformers (>100 MVA) require a more individual approach to loading
criteria beyond nameplate than smaller units. It is also recommended that dissolved gas
analysis tests be conducted after any significant loading beyond nameplate along with
other diagnostic tests to evaluate the result of such loading.


The use of planned loading of transformers beyond their nameplate rating, not only
for emergency conditions but for normal operation, has initiated an IEEE/ANSI Standard,
(C57.119) specifically designed to enable factory testing of units for this capability. During
this test, the transformers thermal characteristics are evaluated at loads beyond
nameplate. These thermal characteristics can then be applied to the transformer thermal
model for better prediction of performance at loads beyond nameplate.


III. Transformer Life Cycle

This planned loading demands that operators be willing to accept an accelerated
loss of insulation life in order to avoid the cost of a replacement transformer. As load
grows this will occur more and more often. The withstand stress of a transformer
6
decreases with time as the insulation system ages. The aging of the insulation system
reduces both the mechanical and dielectric withstand of the unit. Unfortunately, the applied
stress tends to increase with added load or reduced protection over time.
(10)
The concept
is illustrated FIGURE 1:





























Transformer Normal Life Expectancy

FIGURE 1
When installed, a transformer has an inherent strength to withstand short circuit
faults, over-voltages, and other transient events. This withstand level is significantly higher
than the average design and operating stress levels. This higher withstand strength allows
the transformer to operate through a fault event (short-circuit, lightening, system over
voltage, etc.) without failure. The upward spikes in the operating stress curve shows these
sudden large increases in stress that occur during these events.



Normal Life
Expectancy
Age
(yrs.)
Actual
Stress
Design
Withstand
Stress
Actual
Withstand
7
As the transformer ages, due to through faults which result in high radial and
compressive forces, and normal loss of insulation life, the withstand strength gradually
decreases. Unfortunately, at the same time the operating stress gradually increases due to
the increasing demands of the operators to maximize the utilization of the assets on the
system.


FIGURE 1 shows the normal life cycle of a transformer which has been able to
withstand the periodic faults on the system. Load has grown gradually and withstand
decreased due to normal aging. Finally, at the end of life, the transformer can no longer
withstand the operating or fault stresses, which in many cases is significantly higher than
the original designed for stress.


FIGURE 2 shows a premature failure of a transformer where, because of
accelerated aging and through faults, the transformer is not able to withstand a high stress
event without failure. This can occur if load growth is accelerated faster than originally
expected and planned loading above nameplate become more routine, causing an
accelerated reduction in withstand strength. A typical failure mechanism is insulation
system aging, causing a reduction in the mechanical strength of the conductor insulation.
The conductor insulation is then weakened to a point where it can sustain mechanical
damage during a through fault and subsequent coil movement. The damaged turn to turn
insulation then causes a dielectric failure within the windings. Other failure modes can
include loosening of the winding clamping pressure which reduces the transformers ability
to withstand short circuit forces without deformation of the windings. Short circuit forces
are both axial and radial with magnitudes of tens of thousands of pounds.



















8



















Transformer Life-Premature Failure
FIGURE 2

Proper restraint of windings during short circuit faults is necessary for the long-term
reliable operation of a power transformer. A life cycle management program that includes
transformer condition appraisal can identify known defects or weaknesses and correct
them before a premature failure occurs. Things that can be done may include re-tightening
and blocking of loose winding, reprocessing oil, added cooling, etc. These fixes can
significantly increase the withstand strength. In addition, a condition appraisal program, to
be discussed later, can identify units that could be re-deployed to a location with a lower
operating stresses and be operated effectively for years. FIGURE 3 shows the
representative increase in withstand strength from modifications in the field.




Premature
Failure
Actual
Stress
Age
(yrs.

Actual
Withstand
Design
Withstand
Stress
9













Transformer Life Extension
FIGURE 3


It must be remembered that these figures show only general depictions of the
transformer life cycle. There are many factors that influence the shape and length of these
curves. Factors like vintage, manufacture, operating history, design margins, and others
effect the life cycle and must be identified in a complete condition appraisal that includes
diagnostics, to get the most of this expensive asset.
(10)
This type of appraisal, in
conjunction with load studies and load optimizations, will be discussed later in this paper.







Design
Withstand
Actual
Withstand
Normal Life
Expectancy
Extended
Life
Actual
Stress
Stress
Age
(yrs.)
10
IV. Todays Loading Practices - An Industry Survey


A survey was conducted with a representative sample of U.S. utility companies to try
to understand, in a general way, what loading practices are followed today. The survey
discussed both specific limits used and in general what factors are evaluated when
determining a loading policy. A summary of the results shows the following:




TABLE II

Survey Results (Yes/No)


Questions

Yes No
1. Do you use values in C57.91 to determine loading? 82% 18%
2. Do you adjust loading limits based on changes
in load profile?
68% 32%
3. Do you adjust loading limits based on changes
in ambient temperature?
78% 22%
4. Do you have a computer based planning program
for loading beyond nameplate?
63% 37%
5. Do you consider bubble formation in your loading
criteria?
25% 75%
6. Do you consider age and vintage of the transformer? 28% 72%
7. Do you adjust loading based on equipment condition
appraisal or ranking system?
24% 76%
8. Do you adjust loading based on the use of on-line
monitoring?
3% 97%
9. Do you have the same loading limits for distribution,
transmission, and generation units?
45% 55%
10. Are you considering changing from a static to a
dynamic transformer loading practice?
28% 72%








11


The range of answers for specific temperature limits is shown in TABLE III:




TABLE III

Survey Results


Normal Loading Contingency Loading
Range Most Range Most

Top Oil Rise

65 - 110 C

110 C

105 - 110 C

110 C

Average Winding Rise 65 - 95 C 65 C 65 - 110 C 65 C

Hot Spot Temp. 110 - 180 C 110 & 180 C 110 - 180 C 180 C

% Loss of Life/Day 0 - 5% .0369% 0 - 5% 5%

Peak Load P.U. .5 - 2.0 1.5 1.0 - 2.0 2.0



The first area of surprise was that most utilities indicated the use of the current
IEEE/ANSI Loading Guide (C57.91-1996), but when asked the specific limits, the range of
answers was extremely wide and rarely corresponded to the standards. It was also
interesting that very few respondents utilize monitoring or diagnostic tests to help in
deciding how to load transformers more effectively and reliably. Good diagnostic tests like
dissolved gas in oil analysis (DGA) and Doble power factor test are critical components in
determining condition. Selective monitoring of critical units can also be a useful tool in
transformer operation.
(11)
It is also clear from the survey that U.S. utilities do consider
several outside factors when establishing the loading limits of their transformers. The most
common ones used to adjust loading limits are load cycles and seasonal average ambient
temperatures. It appears that most also use some type of loading software to help in this
decision.


Another surprising response is that very few transformer users consider the age,
vintage, or overall condition of the transformer before establishing loading limits. A
condition appraisal program and criticality index are becoming a significant tool in the
12
transformer maintenance but are still not used in determining the extent to which a
transformer can normally be loaded beyond nameplate, or for emergency conditions. The
current philosophy focuses only on influences outside the transformer to set loading limits.
This assumes that all transformers regardless of age, vintage, manufacture, past operating
history, and diagnostic test results are all considered equal in the eyes of loadability.
Remember all transformers are not created equal and in time, they most likely become less
equal. Knowing which are the best, average, weak or endangered can be a significant tool
in deciding how to load the aging transformer population most effectively and direct
maintenance where needed.


V. Industry Pressures Changing Loading Policies from Static to Dynamic

The issues of deferring capital expenditures, getting more from existing assets and
ever-increasing utilization rate of transmission and distribution transformers will require
more effective and flexible loading policies. Current Standards will dictate the temperature
limits in which these policies can be structured, but all factors outside and within the
transformer will be needed to obtain the optimum loading within these limits.


Capital deferment, and getting more out of existing assets has been the policy of
many companies for more than ten years. This has led to the increased overall utilization of
transformers in the T&D System. In the 1970s and 1980s the addition in new capacity to
build infrastructure was immense as shown in FIGURE 4.
(13)


Base GVA per Year Additions
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1
9
6
4
1
9
6
6
1
9
6
8
1
9
7
0
1
9
7
2
1
9
7
4
1
9
7
6
1
9
7
8
1
9
8
0
1
9
8
2
1
9
8
4
1
9
8
6
1
9
8
8
1
9
9
0
1
9
9
2
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
8
f
2
0
0
0
f
2
0
0
2
f
Year
G
V
A

I
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d


13
Transformer Capacity Additions (GVA)

FIGURE 4

Due to the steady growth in power consumption over the past fifteen years, it is
evident that the utilization factor has increased and will begin to accelerate beyond the year
2000. FIGURE 4 also dramatically shows the aging of the transformer infrastructure. With
todays capital spending on new and replacement transformers at its lowest in decades,
the average age of the installed units continue to rise.


There are some solutions to this looming problem. One is to purchase more new
units to replace this aging infrastructure with larger capacity units. This, of course, is
contrary to our challenge of deferring capital expenditures. To maintain the current
utilization rate, with an estimated 1.8 - 2.2 percent per year load growth, a ten year
projected short fall of approximately $5.5 billion, this may become an overwhelming
problem.


The second option is to re-engineer and refurbish existing units after a failure or
when the unit is close to the end of its useful life. This, of course, can also be expensive,
but identification of the right candidates, with an indexed ranking system based on
condition appraisal, and thermal uprate analysis can make this a very viable option. The
third and perhaps most attractive option is to load the existing transformers more, but in an
way that does not effect the overall reliability and failure rate. This can be done by finding
the optimum load capability in the existing units, within predetermined company guidelines
or industry standards. Dynamic loading of power lines is already a reality and is currently in
use by several utilities across the country.
(15)
Another practical strategy is to increase the
load capability by uprating units in the field or redeploying them to where they can be better
utilized.


In reality, the solution to the aging, more highly loaded transformer infrastructure will
be a selective combination of all the options above. The key to meeting the challenge that
faces the industry today will be to develop the tools that utility engineers need to make the
right planning and loading decisions for their transformers.


VI. Static Dynamic Loading Criteria - Driven by the Challenges

Most utilities today still continue to use loading criteria which were established many
years ago. Typically, the upper limit value is based on some load above Nameplate
Rating, or in most cases, the nameplate value is the governing rule. In many cases, these
upper limits vary on the selected operating condition such as normal loading, short-time or
long-time emergency loading. As was shown in TABLE 1, the IEEE and IEC Standards
have established some maximum temperature limits for these conditions. These limits, of
14
course, are based on the thermal limits of the materials used in the construction of the
transformer. The cellulose based insulation that insulates the winding conductor is a 105
C insulation class material, and can tolerate maximum hot spot temperatures up to 120 C.
(6)
At temperatures only slightly higher than this, the cellulose material undergoes
accelerated decomposition which will reduce the transformers ability to withstand the
operating stress and fault conditions. The insulation loss of life is in fact the aging criteria
that the current IEEE and IEC Transformer Loading Guides are based upon.


There has been great debate over the years in industry standards groups, if using
insulation life is appropriate for judging transformer life expectancy. In addition, lengthy
discussions were had in the area of appropriate aging rate constant and the life end-point
criterion. Both of these issues are addressed in the current IEEE/ANSI C57.91, Guide
For Loading Mineral Oil-Immersed Transformers, but four (4) end point criteria are
presented and left to the users to decide which to use based on class of transformer and
user experience.


T.W. Dakin recognized that the aging of cellulose was in fact the result of a chemical
reaction. Thus the rate of change of a measured property, like tensile strength, can be
expressed in the form of a reaction rate constant, K. The reaction rate constant can be
expressed in the familiar Arrhenius reaction rate equation.
(4,8)

K
o
= A EXP [ B / (+273) ] (Equation 3)

Where: A & B = Empirically derived constants, based on material
characteristics.
= Aging Temperatures (C)


An agreement was required for the two empirically derived constants A and B for
65 C cellulose insulation systems. A review of the literature discovered a range of B, the
aging rate constant for cellulose, in the range of 11,000 - 18,000. After careful review, a
value of 15,000 was selected for the new loading guide. The rate constant equation was
then placed on a per unit basis derived from the selection of 110 C as the cellulose
temperature established for one per unit life. This assumes an average 24 hours ambient
of 30 C. (65 C winding rise + 30 C ambient + 15 C hot spot rise.)


p.u. life = A'EXP [ 15000 / (
H
+ 273) ] (Equation #2)


15
This equation has aging rate dependent on temperature alone and a full definition of
1 pu life in units of time (hours) can encompass the end-point criterion including other
variables that effect insulation life.


As cellulose ages, there are in fact three mechanisms responsible for its
degradation. These mechanisms are hydrolysis, oxidation, and pyrolysis and the
respective agents are water, oxygen, and heat. In most end-point criterion, heat is the only
variable that is considered i.e., absolute temperature of the cellulose. The other two
mechanisms of aging have a significant influence on aging rate and need to be controlled
or at least considered in the end point of life determination. The aging rate of the cellulose
is approximately proportional to the amount of water in the cellulose. This simply means
going from 0.5% moisture to 1.0% accelerates the aging rate about two fold. In the case of
oxygen, the difference between a free-breathing transformer compared to a low oxygen
transformer is at least a two time acceleration factor.


The other aging influences mean that operating temperatures alone can not be used
to determine the end-point criteria for your transformer or the ultimate load carrying
capability. Understanding the transformers overall condition, including: moisture, and
oxygen levels becomes considerably more important when operating at higher loads.
When operating these units at these higher load levels, transformer condition appraisal,
including diagnostic tests and selective monitoring are essential.


VII. Transformer Life Cycle Costs - Why Dynamic Loading?

There are two objectives associated with transformer life cycle management. Both
go back to the challenges we mentioned in the introduction. The first is to reduce total
transformer life cycle cost. This comes in the form of reduced maintenance cost through
reliability centered maintenance (RCM) or predictive maintenance practices. Also in the
area of reducing the risk of sudden unexpected failure, which can have a tremendous
impact on life cycle cost.


The other area of the challenge is to maximize total life cycle benefits from the
operation of the transformer. This may in fact become the most important challenge for the
future. This can be accomplished by enhancing the equipment performance and/or
extending its useful life. These concepts can be depicted on a time graph of asset
contribution dollars (AC$) from the operation of the transformer. FIGURE 5 shows what a
simplified curve might look like.




16















+





ZERO





-






Transformer Life Cycle vs. AC$

FIGURE 5

The objective is to maximize the area above the zero AC$ line and minimize the
area below. By doing this, we can maximize the value of transformers in use. In order to
maximize this value in use, we must understand the optimum dynamic load capability of the
unit above nameplate. This provides transformer planners and operators the opportunity to
increase flexibility with the maximum capability of transformers without adversely effecting
failure rate. A key element is to establish a condition appraisal ranking system which sets
Acquisition
and
Installation
Costs
Maintenance
Unplanned
Outage
Clean Up Costs
Associated with
A Failure
Planned
Retirement
Time
AC$
Energization
17
optimum load limits and provides direction for maintenance spending based on the
condition and capability of the unit. This is accomplished by identifying which units can be
loaded higher and to what extent. The condition appraisal ranking can also identify weaker
units that may require maintenance or the correction of known defects.

























Transformer Life Cycle Extension

FIGURE 6


The third way of maximizing the useful value is to identify which units can be
thermally uprated on-site. These units are identified in the condition appraisal process and
can add value by improving load capability or extending insulation life or both. This not only
raises the AC$ curve but makes it longer. With a dynamic loading criteria, combined with
an increasing ability to move load around the system, planners and operators get
appreciably more out of existing transformers.


The end of this life cycle curve which is very important to overall AC$, represents
retirement or decommissioning versus sudden failure and force outage. The latter event
can in fact cost several times the cost of a new transformer. If the end of life can be
Uprate in
Field
Life
Extension
Time
AC$
18
anticipated, a planned retirement or redeployment can be a cost effective alternative. The
identification of the transformers near the end of life is a very complex question with no
easy solutions. A comprehensive condition appraisal program that includes diagnostic
tests is essential in starting this identification process. This must also be coupled with on-
going diagnostics and most likely some on-line continuous monitoring to act as an early
warning systems for problems on units identified to be at a critical point in their life cycle.
The initial condition appraisal part of this process which ranks the units in order of overall
condition can also identify units at risk and lead to recommendations on which units should
be watched carefully for signs of sudden failure. This is analogous to what happens with
critically ill patients in the hospital; until they are well enough or problems corrected, they
are highly monitored in the hospitals intensive care unit. Here any sudden changes in
condition are identified and quick action can be taken to save the patient.


Of course, condition appraisal or ranking systems can only identify those
transformers that are at greater risk of developing problems. Spontaneous and sudden
failures can still happen. The goal would be to reduce this number significantly. The non-
failed problem transformer can then be dealt with by retirement, in field refurbishment, on-
line monitoring or even re-engineering and rewinding these units to improve performance
characteristics. This re-engineering can, in most cases, be done at less cost than a new
replacement transformer of the same MVA. So, dynamic loading will become routine,
enabling operators to make better decisions on how to maximize the transformer life cycle
asset value (AC$) and minimize the risk of sudden failure or forced outage.


VIII. Maximum Loading Analysis + Condition Appraisal = Optimum Loading

1. Enhancing Transformer Load Capability-

The development of this practice was driven by the need to maximize the asset
value of transformers in operation. These units have a wide range of ages, conditions, and
amount of insulation aging. More importantly, there is typically limited information available
about the thermal performance of older units. Many of these units were not given heat run
tests to determine thermal performance and temperature rises were calculated by
comparing the design to a previously tested thermal duplicate. The definition of thermal
duplicate did not have strict guidelines to be used by producers to determine units with like
thermal characteristics. Calculating the optimum load capability needs to be more than a
theoretical mathematical exercise. The real world load capability of an aging transformer
needs to be made in association with a detailed condition appraisal project.


2. Condition Appraisal - Overview

Condition appraisal is a benchmarking project which differentiates theoretical upper
limit loading from optimum or practical load limits for a specific transformer. A complete
19
condition appraisal for a selected key group of transformers is a vital element in any life
cycle management and/or dynamic loading program. The key transformers are typically
chosen based on a criticality index. This index is often established by the utility based on
age, critical loads, load growth, size, etc., and may be a variation of the criticality index
selection used for a RCM program. A complete condition appraisal is a benchmarking
project that ranks the selected transformers according to its present condition as
compared to the other transformers being evaluated. After this ranking is complete, a
condition assessment (which is an on-going process of diagnostics and monitoring) can
be established to determine aging, fault or incipient failure.


The condition appraisal is a fundamental part of any transformer life cycle
management program and the benchmarking of these units facilitates the following:

Prioritizing maintenance resources for transformers.
Development of load planning database which includes transformer optimum load,
present utilization, and temperature rise.
Direction to focus future diagnostics or on-line monitoring spending, to effectively
avoid forced outages.
Making decisions on field re-engineering to extend transformer life, such as uprated
cooling, filtration, and oil preservation system.


3. Complete Condition Appraisal Program

A complete condition appraisal program must include the following levels:

Level 1 - Transformer Engineering Analysis
Level 2 - Internal and External Field Inspection
Level 3 - Testing and Diagnostics


Each one of these steps has several elements which facilitate the benchmarking
process. These elements also will many times identify defects or deficiencies, some of
which may be reversible and possible lead to transformer life extension or improved load
capacity.

20
Condition Appraisal - Level 1
Engineering Analysis
Design
Usage
Historic Tests and
Diagnostics
Operating Environment
On-Site Examination
Tests and Diagnostics
Level 1
-DGA
-Oil Quality
-Power Factor
-Insulation Resistance
-Historical Loading
-Prior Overloads
-Prior Through Faults
-Fault Frequency
-Fault Levels
-Maintenance Practices
Level 2
Level 3
-Source Impedance
-Protection Scheme
-Lightning Level
-Ambient Temperatures
-Load Power Factor
Main Unit
-Manufacture
-Vintage
-Winding Configuration
-Materials
-Short Circuit
-BIL
Ancillary Equipment
-Oil Preservation System
-LTC
-Cooling System
-Bushings



Condition Appraisal - Level 2
Engineering Analysis
Internal Inspection External Inspection
Tests and Diagnostics
-Coils and Clamp
-LTC and NLTC Switches
-Oil Level and Gas Space
-Leads and Paper
Level 3
-Cooling System
-Bushings
-Lightning Arresters
-LTC Switch
-Tank
On-Site Examination
Level 1
Level 2


21
Condition Appraisal - Level 3
Engineering Analysis
Tests and Diagnostics Level 3
On-Site Examination
Level 1
Level 2
-Dissolved Gas Analysis (DGA)
-Moisture in Oil
-Power Factor
-Magnetizing Current
-Winding Resistance
-Frequency Response Analysis (FRA)
-Discharge Detection and Location
-Furfuraldehyde
*Particle Count
-Leakage reactance/impedance
-Turns Ratio
-Insulation Resistance
-Moisture level in paper insulation
*Degree of Polymerization
-Vibration, location of sensor
-Infrared Scan
-Return Voltage Method (RVM)

Level 3


At the conclusion of all levels of the condition appraisal process, the transformers
are assigned a numerical index according to the results. This index number will provide the
utility with better tools to manage the life cycle costs of the transformer including:


Providing a starting point condition to increase the effectiveness of predictive or
reliability centered maintenance.
Identifying problem units and taking action to correct known defects or to re-
deploy units. These units can then be used more effectively.
The field tests performed as a part of condition appraisal can be used to refine
the thermal model used to predict internal transformer temperature which are
used to determine optimum load and/or end-point of life criteria.
The condition appraisal project can also identify units that can be uprated via
cooling modifications in the field or units that should be retired.
22
Managing the end of life of endangered transformers, the utility can save a
significant amount of money versus a catastrophic failure and associated clean-
up costs.


In future load planning scenarios, these thermal model characteristics for each
transformer would be programmed and be available real time against which actual
performance would be monitored. Transformer performance characteristics, in addition to
information on both ambient temperature and loading cycle are critical in determining the
transformer load available for normal operation and emergency events. In dynamic
loading, these inputs are evaluated in real-time to allow the operator flexibility in deciding
how much the unit can be loaded at any given point in time. This mathematical thermal
model is then used to predict the individual transformers internal temperatures and
insulation loss of life. A computer program is utilized to calculate temperatures of the
winding, hottest-spot and top oil with various loading and ambient scenarios. These what-
if cases allow the user to determine the effects of load condition have on the life and health
of the transformer.


IX. Load Optimization with Computer Thermal Model


To effectively run the different cases of load and ambient on the thermal model, one
must first establish loading criteria which is acceptable for the transformer. This loading
criteria is typically established for normal loading, planned loading above nameplate, long-
time emergency and short-time emergency cases. Each of these loading patterns has an
increasing level of risk associated with it. This risk is balanced with the need to meet
certain load condition periodically throughout the life of the transformer. In addition to the
loading needs, and risk maximum loading criteria should reflect the overall condition of the
transformer and its ability to withstand this additional stresses. The condition assessment
can help in establishment of an end-point of life criteria (number of hours) the information
can be used in the new per unitized life equation to predict percentage of loss of life.


In a new transformer, or one that is appraised as good to excellent, a typical
loading criteria will be different than a transformer in just fair to poor condition.
By applying these loading criteria to the thermal model of the transformer and the loading
and ambient temperature cycles maximum absolute loads (kVA) capacity can be
determined for individual transformers. Where anticipated loads exceed the transformer
capability for one or all of these cases, cooling upgrade studies are conducted to
determine if these loads can be accommodated with improved cooling. Other options may
be the re-deployment of units not capable of carrying the load within the criteria with
transformers that are capable because of rating or overall condition.


23
X. Loading Above Nameplate Studies


A major Southern utility with high load growth, had several substations which were at
or above the utilities loading criteria. This meant that new projects had to be placed on the
1998 Capital Budget to replace these transformers with new units. The results of one of
the load studies and condition appraisals identified options a utility may have when faced
with these decisions and armed with loading data, and a condition index for the
transformers.


1. Case 1

Transformer Type: Three-phase, LTC Autotransformer
Manufacturer: General Electric - Pittsfield, MA
MVA & Cooling: 90/120/150//168, 55/65, OA/FA/FOA
Voltage: 230,000v Grd Y/132,800 - 69,000Y/39480
H.V. No-Load Taps: +/-5% 4 x 2.5%
L.V. Load Taps: +/- 10% 30 x 0.625%


The above unit serves the utilities 69 kV system and is in parallel with a larger
capacity unit. In 1997, the peak load at this station exceeded 250 mva (1.67 times the
maximum 55 C rating) which is greater than the utilities established limit for contingency
loading in a two unit substation. This criteria did not take load cycle, ambient or
transformer condition into consideration. Meeting this limit meant purchasing a larger
transformer in 1998 to alleviate the perceived problem. The maximum loading capabilities,
temperature and loss of life were based on the original temperature rises from the heat run
data, specified load and ambient temperatures.


A. Limiting Criteria for Loading


The following temperature limits were used in this study and loss of insulation life
during contingency operation (TABLE IV). These limiting criteria were agreed to limits of
the utility for the operation of this type of substation transformer. These limits may vary
between utilities.




24
TABLE IV
Load Limiting Criteria

Parameter

Normal Life Load
Long-Time
Contingency
Short-Time
Contingency
Max Hot Spot Temp 120 C 140 C 160 C
Max Top Oil Temp 105 C 110 C 110 C
Max Loss Of Life/Cycle 0.037% 1.0% 1.0%
Bubbling in Oil No No No
Allowed Method for
Improved Rating

Fans & Rads

Fans & Rads

Fans & Rads

The other system information needed to complete this study is shown below:
System Peak Ambient Temperatures
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1
:
0
0
3
:
0
0
5
:
0
0
7
:
0
0
9
:
0
0
1
1
:
0
0
1
3
:
0
0
1
5
:
0
0
1
7
:
0
0
1
9
:
0
0
2
1
:
0
0
2
3
:
0
0
Time in Hours
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

i
n

D
e
g
.

C
Summer
Winter

Summer & Winter Ambient Cycles

FIGURE 7
25
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
13579
1
1
1
3
1
5
1
7
1
9
2
1
2
3
Time in Hours
L
o
a
d

i
n

P
e
r

U
n
i
t

o
f

P
e
a
k
Summer
Winter

FIGURE 8
Load Cycles - Winter & Summer


The results for the actual limits for the four loading conditions are shown in the
following FIGURE 9:

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Constant
Loading
Normal
Operation
24 Hour
Load Cycl e
Normal
Operation
24 Hour
Contingency
Operati on
12 Hour
Contingency
Operation
M
V
A
Summer
Winter

FIGURE 9
Dynamic Loading Comparison Base Case

26

The graph shows that the transformer would be capable of carrying a Peak Winter
short-time contingency load of 275 MVA. During this contingency, the loss of life for each
daily cycle is 0.44% which is less than half the upper limiting criteria of 1.0%. The limiting
criteria was in fact the hottest spot temperature of 160 C, which from the detailed
computer tabulation, it can be seen that it occurs approximately 2 hours after the peak
contingency load. If the hottest spot temperature is allowed to go to the maximum allowed
by standards 180 C the load could theoretically even be higher.


The FIGURE 9 also shows that the transformer would be capable of carrying a peak
winter long-time contingency load of 252 MVA. The loss of life for each daily cycle is 0.1%
which is an order of magnitude below the 1% limit established. Once again, the hottest
spot limit of 140 C was the limiting factor for the loading. All of the summer loading
capabilities are less than the winter, but in the case of this substation, worst case loading
occurs during a winter peak cycle.


B. Cooling Uprate - Fans

The transformer was also evaluated for an on-site cooling upgrade and the
additional capacity that could be obtained for this relatively inexpensive upgrade. During a
transformer condition appraisal, it was determined that an upgrade could easily improve
the transformer cooling with the addition of 14 fans. This increased the fan count to 32. All
the same limiting criteria loading and ambient cycles were used. The results showed that
for short-time contingency loading, the transformer was capable of 291 MVA and the hot-
spot was still the limiting criteria. TABLE V shows the transformers thermal characteristics
before and after the cooling upgrade. The added cooling improved the loading capacity by
16,000 kVA with an estimated cost of material of $11,500.00 Total cost would be
approximately $20,000.00 or just over $1.00 per additional kVA in this case.


C. Uprated Design - Re-engineering and Rewind

An uprate estimate was also completed for this unit to evaluate the feasibility of
sending the unit to a repair facility and have an uprate re-design done on the unit. This
option, of course, would be more costly, but could give a significant increase in capacity at
significantly less cost than a new unit.







27
TABLE V

TRANSFORMER LOAD AND COOLING UPGRADE STUDY
Distribution Substation
Bank #2, General Electric S/N: D566421
90/120/150//168 MVA, OA/FA/FOA, 230-69 kV, LTC


Transformer Thermal Characteristics & Cooling Data
Existing Upgraded
Hot Spot Rise (HSR) - C 68.9 58.4
Top Oil Rise (TOR) ) - C 37.2 26.2
Avg. Winding Rise (CuR) ) - C

61.9 51.4
Hot Spot over Top Oil (HS Grad) ) - C 31.7 32.2
Avg. Oil Rise (AOR) ) - C

35.2 24.7
Avg. Wdg. Over Avg. Oil (Cu Grad) ) - C 26.7 26.7
Top Oil over Avg. Oil (Half DT) ) - C

2.0 2.0
# of Radiator Banks 4 4
Radiator Height - (in.) 154 154
# of Plates 39 39
Plate Width - (in.)

5.25 5.25
# of Fans 18 32
Diameter - (in.) 26 26
RPM 1750 1750
# of Blades

4 2
Fan Loss (watts) 10800 19200
Fan Noise - (dB) 81.5 85.0
Upgrade Cost Estimate (materials) - ($) 0.0 11500
Effective MVA Increase 0.0 16.0

Cost of Additional MVA ($/kVA) - 0.72
The following FIGURE 10 compares the base case (original unit), to the cooling
upgrade (Option A) and the re-engineered transformer (Option B).
28
Re-desi gn
Cool i ng
Base Case
Constant Loading Normal Operation
24 Hour Load Cycle Normal Operation
24 Hour Contingency Operation
12 Hour Contingency Operation
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
M
V
A


FIGURE 10

Winter Loading Capability


D. Ancillary Equipment -

In addition to transformer loading, current carrying ancillary equipment must also be
evaluated for their ability to carry the added load current. This must be done without
exceeding established limits for these devices. All of these devices must be looked at, but
the most important are bushings, tap changers and current transformers.


E. Bushings- *

The current Standards set the following limits on bushings:
Maximum Ambient Air - 40 C
Maximum Immersion Temperature - 110 C
Maximum Emergency Current - 2x rated current
Bushing Hottest Spot - 150 C

*Bushings do not utilize thermally upgraded paper and have an insulation temperature
rating of 95 C.
Temperature rise calculations were completed for low voltage, and high voltage
bushings and they did not exceed the limits. One reason the temperature was not
29
exceeded was a relatively low top oil temperature due to outside ambient temperature at
the time of the peak winter contingency.


F. Tap changers -

Maximum contact temperature rise of tap changers is also limited by ANSI
standards. Contact temperature for maximum short-time contingency was calculated and
was within the 20 C limit.


2. Case II - Industrial Plant Transformer Loading Above Nameplate

In this case study, the transformer serves a critical industrial load. The load is
relatively constant since the plant operates 24 hours per day. This substation is dedicated
to a single customer and was designed to be fully redundant when the plant was built. The
transformer is rated as follows:


Type: Three-phase, Load Tap Charges
Manufacturer: McGraw Edison Company
MVA Cooling: 12/16/20//22.4 55/65 C, OA/FA/FA
Volts and Connection: 67,000 Delta - 13090Y/7560
H.V. No-Load Taps: +/- 5% 4 x 2.5% Steps
L.V. Load Taps: +/- 10% 32 x 0.625% Steps


In recent years, the plant has expanded and the load has increased to a peak of 27
mva, which is above the maximum rating of either unit at the plant. This would require the
purchase of an additional unit to cover the failure of either unit.


The limiting criteria for loading and ambient temperature cycles are the same as in
Case 1. The loading of this industrial plant transformer was nearly a constant 24 hours per
day.










30

The results of the summer and winter cycles and four types of loading are shown in
FIGURE 11 below.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Constant
Loadi ng
Normal
Operation
24 Hour
Load Cycle
Normal
Operation
24 Hour
Contingency
Operation
12 Hour
Conti ngency
Operation
M
V
A
Smmer
Winter

FIGURE 11

Dynamic Loading Comparison Base Case


The figure shows that the existing transformers would be capable of individually
carrying a peak summer long-time contingency load of 27.5 MVA. The loss of life for each
cycle would be 0.44% which is less than half of the limiting criteria. The limiting criteria was
the hottest spot temperature of 140 C which was at the time of the highest ambient. The
tabulation of results shows that the existing units can just handle this peak contingency
condition.


A. Cooling Upgrade Study -

The possibility of a cooling upgrade was investigated to reduce the hottest spot
temperature at the 27 MVA contingency load or to give the transformer extra capacity.
Options were evaluated during the on-site transformer inspection. The following options
were considered:

Option A. Add 1 fan
Option B. Add 1 fan and 2 Radiators on the H.V. Side
Option C. Add 9 fans and 2 Radiators
Option D. Add 1 fan and change other fans to high CFM fans.

31
The loading capabilities of both transformers can be increased by modifying their
cooling systems. FIGURE 12 below shows the resulting capacity of the transformers for
each of these cooling options. They have been ordered on the graph in increasing
effectiveness in improving MVA. Since load is relatively constant throughout the day and
year, summer is the worst case, due to the higher ambient.
Base
Case
Option
A
Option
D
Option
B
Option
C
Constant Loading Normal Operation
24 Hour Load Cycle Normal Operation
24 Hour Contingency Operation
12 Hour Contingency Operation
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
M
V
A

FIGURE 12

Summer Loading Capability


TABLE V below shows the details of the transformers thermal characteristics and
cooling data.


Option D, the addition of one additional and 9 replacement high CFM (cubic feet
per minute) fans appears to be the most economical and easiest solution to improve the
capacity of the transformer to carry 27 MVA. All ancillary equipment that carry current were
also checked for temperature rises, and found to be within specified limits.


In both of these cases studies, the utility was able to avoid or at least delay, the
purchase of a new transformer with knowledge about how the transformers responded with
the dynamic conditions of load and ambient cycle and their overall ability to carry loads
beyond nameplate. In addition, viable options of performance enhancements were
explored and will further delay the need for a new unit.



32




TABLE VI

TRANSFORMER LOAD AND COOLING UPGRADE STUDY
Industrial Substation
McGraw Edison S/N: C-06720-5-1 & 2
12/16/20//22.4 MVA, OA/FA/FA, 67-13 kV, LTC

Transformer Thermal Characteristics & Cooling Data
Existing Option A Option B Option C Option D
Hot Spot Rise (HSR) - C 76.4 72.3 63.0 54.7 64.6
Top Oil Rise (TOR) ) - C 51.2 46.8 37.0 28.3 38.7
Avg. Winding Rise (CuR) ) - C

61.4 58.1 50.8 44.3 52.1
Hot Spot over Top Oil (HS Grad) ) - C 25.2 25.5 26.0 26.4 25.9
Avg. Oil Rise (AOR) ) - C

38.2 34.9 27.6 21.1 28.9
Avg. Wdg. Over Avg. Oil (Cu Grad) ) - C 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2
Top Oil over Avg. Oil (Half DT) ) - C

13.0 11.9 9.4 7.2 9.8
# of Radiators 3 3 5 5 3
Radiator Height - (in.) 120 120 120 120 120
# of Plates 31 31 31 31 31
Plate Width - (in.)

15 15 15 15 15
# of Fans 7 8 8 16 8
Diameter - (in.) 26 26 26 26 26
RPM 1140 1140 1140 1140 1750
# of Blades

4 4 4 4 2
Loss (watts) 2310 2640 2640 5280 4800
Fan Noise - (dB)

66.5 67.0 67.0 72.0 79.0
Upgrade Cost Estimate (materials) - $ 0.0 650 8700 16000 7500
Effective MVA Increase 0.0 0.8 2.8 5.1 2.5
33


Cost of Additional MVA ($/kVA) - 0.81 3.11 3.14 3.00



XI. Conclusion: Dynamic Loading of Transformers - Future

Dynamic loading of transformers means more than setting loading criteria based on
varying historical load and ambient cycles. Re-rating transformers to operate above
nameplate rating requires establishing maximum acceptable load criteria in the form of
internal transformer temperatures, ancillary equipment capability, and insulation loss of life
criteria, and in real-time calculation, the maximum optimum load. In order to effectively
implement such a program, several important steps should be followed.

1) Condition Appraisal -
Benchmarking and index rank of units
Ancillary equipment evaluated for capability
End-point criteria of life identified-relative
Indexed ranking of units

2) Load Optimization -
Criteria Set % Loss of life, maximum temperatures
Ancillary equipment temperature rise and current capability
Options to improve capacity with cooling upgrade.

3) Dynamic Loading Program -
Use of new temperature sensors - top, bottom, hottest spot, ambient,
LTC Compartment, etc.
Transformer thermal model and aging criteria established
Algorithm for transformer model developed for monitor
Monitor to convert loading and ambient to loss of life and temperatures in
real time
Calculation of cumulative loss-of-life done continuously.
Insulation Life Dosimeter


The dynamic loading program would consider all the transformer and outside
factors that influence hottest spot temperature and loss of life and establish the upper
loading limits of the transformer in real time. This loading would be established for normal
life loading, planned loading beyond nameplate, long-time emergency loading and short-
time emergency loading. This dynamic loading would give the operators specific
information on the loading capability of the transformer under any condition.


34
Dynamic loading programs would make the most effective use of transformer and
give the operator real time information on how to load the system units. With this type of
loading, more appropriate decisions could be made as to when new units should be
purchased or identify units to be re-deployed for more effective use or to extend their life.